Posted on 07/01/2003 10:22:12 AM PDT by ksen
RECOVERING THE TRUTH & A COMING TO A CORRECT UNDERSTANDING OF JESUS
Jesus and all his followers were Jews who were faithful to Biblical Judaism and never intended to separate from or start a new religion; after their deaths the Gentile Christian church will condemn the Jewish Christians as heretics...in time fruit of the Jewish Church (Gentile Christianity) will destroy it's mother
We have a unique paradox in Biblical history; one which touches every follower of Jesus yet today and which reaches to the very core of our own culture and time. It is impossible to understand Jesus or his message until we come to a correct understanding of the events that fashioned such persecution of the Jews by the Gentile believers and which contributed to the alteration of the faith of Jesus as can be found to have existed in the first century of Second Temple Judaism. As stated earlier the first and greatest division in the early church concerned the relationship of the followers of Jesus to Judaism; it shaped everything that was to follow. One of the greatest problems facing Christianity today is how to reconcile what it has become with G-d's intended vision for the Gentile nations of the world whereby they become part of the Israel of G-d and not "replace" it with a religion of their own creation. The answers for such a problem come only when one personally acquaints himself with an unbiased presentation of the facts of the tragic events of this part of Biblical history and traces the repercussions of such events down through the corridors of history and ultimately seeing the shock waves from them that are present in our own religious beliefs systems and cultures of today.
Today many scholars tell us the truth today about the early church and courageously break from "church traditions" and "mind control" to present the facts concerning these "events" and the corruption of the early faith of the historical Jesus by the Gentile "converts" who would later steer the direction of this "faith" throughout recorded history. It is so simple today to find this information, but sadly few look or even know the need to see if "they be in the faith." That being the case, we accept the "spin" of religious leaders down through history and the real message of Jesus is never heard, or at best, is overlooked for more "orthodox teachings" espoused which have taken it's place. Keith Akers, in his The Lost Religion of Jesus, states the case as well as any. Jewish Christianity consisted of those early Christians who followed the teachings of Jesus, as they understood him, and also remained loyal to the Jewish law of Moses as they understood it. Messianic Judaism was not to replace Judaism with a new faith; it was the goal and zenith for which the prophets wrote and hoped. This simple statement is of profound importance, because the Jewish Christians were eventually rejected both by orthodox Judaism and by orthodox Gentile Christianity. The understanding of the Jewish follower of Jesus was not that of orthodox Christianity (as it came to be where Jesus is seen more like the sun-g-dmen of the Gentile nations than a human messiah). Likewise the Jewish follower of Jesus possessed an understanding of the law of Moses that was the same as orthodox Judaism, but yet this view would later be rejected under the influence of Paul and his churches. Jerome's celebrated comment in the fourth century summarizes this dual rejection: "As long as they seek to be both Jews and Christians, they are neither Jews nor Christians" [Letter 112] (Akers, The Lost Religion of Jesus, p. 7).
The Jewish Christians considered Jesus to be the "true prophet" who would lead the people back to the eternal law that commanded simple living and nonviolence. They saw in Jesus their hopes for physical redemption and the fulfillment of the prophets. It was their hope that the Law would go forth from Zion with Jesus at its head as the long awaited Messiah and King of Israel. It was their hope that the enemies of Israel would be vanquished by the word of this anointed one of the LORD as taught in the Psalms of Solomon (no not the psalms you are familiar with but a separate Jewish books that was recognized by Jews as authoritative in the first century). The law, which was cherished by all G-dfearing Jews, had been given to Moses; indeed, it had existed from the beginning of the world, and was intended to be cherished and observed by both Jew and non-Jew alike because in the Commandments one finds the unique Covenant stipulations of his Covenant before G-d. In sharp contrast with the gentile Christian movement, which emerged in the wake of Paul's teaching, Jewish Christianity strove to make the Jewish law stricter than the Jewish tradition seemed to teach ("you have heard it said but I say unto you...'much more'"). Such was the Jesus' love for G-d and His Word. But this cannot be said for the Gentile churches which strove to find ways to lay aside the law for the laxity that was taught under the disguise of "grace." In other words, the non-Jews loved the large "gray areas" that came from the teaching of Paul and others who negated the Law through their own personal "revelations" and their own personal "gospels" (Paul is found saying in Rom 2:16 16: In the day when G-d shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel and again in 2 Tim 2:8 8: Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel). It is a little early in this article to address this concept but if you study continues you will reach a point in your understanding and knowledge where you will see beyond any doubt that the "gospel of Paul" replaced the "gospel of Jesus and Judaism."
Jewish Christianity is the blind spot in virtually all accounts of Jesus. Everyone agrees that Jesus was a Jew and that his initial followers were Jews. Yet of the thousands of books written about Jesus, almost none acknowledge the central importance of Jewish Christianity; at least until the end of the previous century and the beginning of the present one. That was true up until the latter part of the last century when Jewish, as well as European scholars began to reevaluate the Jewish Jesus and contrast the Historical Jesus with the Christ of Faith. There are many who are eager to focus specifically on the Jewishness of Jesus, until they get to the point of examining those of his followers who, like their teacher, were also Jewish, and in doing so see for themselves that actually nothing really changed within this community of the closest followers of Jesus until the early fourth century when Rome would effectively destroy the Jewish "followers of Jesus" by declaring them official heretics. The power of Rome would propagate a Gentile understanding and not a Jewish understanding of Jesus (see Constantine's Easter letter if you have any doubts).
The "Jewishness" of these early Christians does not refer to their ethnic group or nationality, but rather to their beliefs. Paul was a convert to Judaism (H. Maccoby, The Mythmaker, Paul And The Invention Of Christianity) and only later converted to Judaism; first a Sadducee, and after rejection by the Chief Priest he turned to the Pharisees, again only to be rejected by them for his prior cruelty to them as an agent of the Temple police who routed them out and killed them (the Messianic believing strict branch of the Pharisees called Nazarenes/Essenes). Paul also preaches freedom from the law and therefore explicitly rejects Jewish beliefs. Paul, and some of the other Jews who became Christians, renounced the law of Moses and, therefore, were not part of Jewish Christianity. The churches of Paul today (vast majority of Christianity as it exists today) lay outside the true faith of Jesus and will continue to do so unless they encounter the truth about this man of Galilee and the truth about their own religious history.
Without understanding Jewish Messianic Judaism or "intended Christianity", we cannot understand the historical Jesus let alone the earliest church nor the corruption of it within the New Testament correctly. Lacking this knowledge we are doomed to misinterpret most of what we read in the New Testament and our worship let alone our conduct will be in error...much of which is defined as sin in the Torah.
I need to what? "Work"? You sure contradict yourself alot.
But he has not revealed it to you has He? He revealed it to someone that is teaching it to you. You have no clue if what you are saying is correct translation
BTW the mormons like that book you suggested on the corruption of scripture..seems it has a Joeseph Smith theme to it . Interesting company you keep
Steve just how large is this new flock you belong to? Did your family come with you?
So ... once again ... why did the Jewish religious leaders of Jesus' time turn him over the the Romans for execution ?
You keep asking this question as if its some profound stumblingblock to my viewpoint.
I kept asking the question because you hadn't answered it.
The answer is because the jews interpreted his words as blashphemy and by interpreting wrongly that Yeshua said he was God.
Big deal, earlier in his ministry they also said he was possessed by Belial. Are you being selective in determining when to believe certain jews or not?
When the Jewish religious leaders accused Jesus of possession by Beelzebub, Jesus rigorously demonstrated that this wasn't true and warned his accusers of the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
OTOH, when the Jewish religious leaders were in the process of trying Jesus for sin of blasphemy (in that he, a man, maketh himself to be equal to God), ... he never denied it.
One would think that, as a Torah-observant Jewish Rabbi, ... Jesus would have been obligated to deny this accusation, ... if it were false.
But, in fact, he went to the cross, ... rather than to, ... simply, ... deny that he was God.
Luke is the only place that phrase is quoted. It is used by Bible scholars as a proof that Luke belongs in the canon (remember Luke is the only none Jewish writer in the Bible)
That's funny. I accused you of cut-and-pasting before, and you told me the work was your own. So I'll repeat my advice to you from before:
When you stop regurgitating verbatim what you read on another message board - and start putting them into your own words (indicating that you fully understand and have internalized the concepts), let me know.
If you'd had noticed, Yeshua wasn't in the mood to defend himself against any charges.
In case you hadn't noticed, ... Yeshua certainly defended himself against the charge of being possessed by Beelzebub (your example).
If indeed it is a "quote" and not just a coincidence that the same phrase is used, how do you know Paul quoted Luke and not the other way around?
SD
I want to hear what YOU believe not a past & copy of someone else's ranting. Steve what do you believe? How are you saved by a man like yourself? How do you KNOW you are saved by him???
I think it is interesting that the on the scene hearers understood exactly what Jesus said (no greek interpretaion needed for them). But now we are to believe that the Jewish scholars hearing the words first hand did not understand what Steves mentor does. There is a disconnect here somewhere.
So you agree that our own personal feelings about something is a poor judge of its goodness or inspiration. That's the first step.
I never said personal feelings however, those are your words. I said the feeling in my heart; the presence of God. Many claim to feel the presense of God but do not. How do you know? You see the fruits of the experience and know that it is God; victory over sin, complete change in thought, desire to serve God... The examples I gave above illustrate that just because someone says they are religious and doing God's work does not mean that they have truly serving God or feeling His presense. I am not coming down on Mormons, Catholics and Muslims. They can very well know God. But those that conduct theirselves as such are not in the presence of God.
You don't want to hear anything but your own mind and how it fits into your "alledged" theology. Be gone.
I'm glad we agree.
I never said personal feelings however, those are your words. I said the feeling in my heart; the presence of God.
Are you not a person? Can I or others experience objectively what feeling you have in your heart?
No. They are personal. Sorry.
The examples I gave above illustrate that just because someone says they are religious and doing God's work does not mean that they have truly serving God or feeling His presense. I am not coming down on Mormons, Catholics and Muslims. They can very well know God. But those that conduct theirselves as such are not in the presence of God.
Yes, I agree. It is the Mormons who attest to the veracity and inspiration of their Book of Mormon by asking you to read it and pray for that special feeling in your heart. I fail to see the difference between this and how you know the NT to be inspired.
SD
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.